Impact and interest

Abstract

A cognitively plausible measure of semantic similarity between geographic concepts is valuable across several areas, including geographic information retrieval, data mining, and ontology alignment. Semantic similarity measures are not intrinsically right or wrong, but obtain a certain degree of cognitive plausibility in the context of a given application. A similarity measure can therefore be seen as a domain expert summoned to judge the similarity of a pair of concepts according to her subjective set of beliefs, perceptions, hypotheses, and epistemic biases. Following this analogy, we first define the similarity jury as a panel of experts having to reach a decision on the semantic similarity of a set of geographic concepts. Second, we have conducted an evaluation of 8 WordNet-based semantic similarity measures on a subset of OpenStreetMap geographic concepts. This empirical evidence indicates that a jury tends to perform better than individual experts, but the best expert often outperforms the jury. In some cases, the jury obtains higher cognitive plausibility than its best expert.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.

If you are a publisher or author and have copyright concerns for any item, please email research.repository@ucd.ie and the item will be withdrawn immediately. The author or person responsible for depositing the article will be contacted within one business day.